CNN, WMUR, and the New Hampshire Union Leader will host a presidential debate on Saturday, June 13th in Manchester. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, and Ron Paul will participate. In addition, unannounced candidate Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum will also take part.Gary Johnson, however, will not participate. Why? Because he wasn’t invited. This morning, we learned along with the rest of world that CNN and the other debate sponsors have decided to exclude Governor Johnson from sharing your voice in the debate. Apparently, the powers-that-be in the mainstream media do not want Americans to hear from the man who has been called “the most dangerous politician in America.” In the latest Gallup poll, released one week ago, Governor Johnson’s level of support registered at 3% nationally. This is competitive with candidates like Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum, both of whom have been invited to participate. In fact, I’m not aware of a poll in which Mr. Santorum has out-polled Governor Johnson nationally.

Nationally? Nope. Just with the evangelicals and fundamentalist social conservatives whose arses he continues to chap his lips upon.

To our shock, at about 6:30 this morning, we learned that Governor Johnson was not invited, he was not going to be invited, and he would not be allowed to participate.

Nonsense. Insulting, infuriating nonsense.

The Johnson campaign helpfully provided contact info for the folks behind this decision.

So, I saw on Memeorandum that CNN had announced their debate line-up. I was pretty excited. I've made no secret of that fact that I'm a fan of Gary Johnson, and I felt he didn't have an opportunity to say enough at the First in the South debate.

I was hoping that maybe he'd get a chance to be in a more... what's the word?... traditional debate. You know. The kind where candidates aren't told to raise their hand to signify an answer (Never mind nuance or extenuating factors on the topic at hand. Yes or no, raise your hand! Nonsense.). Better yet, the kind of debate where aspirants to the highest office in the land aren't asked Miss Universe questions.

"Um... like... if you were on a reality show, what would it be? OK. Now, if you were a car, what kind of gas mileage might we expect?"

(Idiocy. Whoever came up with that reality show question is too vapid to be involved in political discourse. Go join a Jersey Shore chat room or the Octomom fan club or something.)

So. You might imagine I was beyond disappointed to see that Johnson wasn't included.

Disappointment gave way to fury, however, as I realized that that sanctimonious prig Rick Santorum is on the ticket. (NEWSFLASH - While the fundies may be all for a Santorum theocracy, there aren't enough of them to get him elected.) Also on the dais will be Newt Gingrich... because Newt and the media keep telling us he's a viable candidate. (NEWSFLASH 2 - People outside the incestuous beltway gang hate this guy. Right, left and middle.) Most of the rest of them I understand.

Are there any announced candidates besides Johnson who aren't invited?

Anyway, moments ago Johnson sent out a statement. Once again (and probably for every damn one I get) I'm posting the whole thing:

“I respect the right of CNN and the other sponsors of the June 13 New Hampshire Republican presidential primary debate to apply their own criteria and invite who they choose. It is, however, unfortunate that a significant segment of the Republican Party, and more importantly, millions of independent voters who might be Republican voters, will not have a voice on the stage in Manchester.

What will be missing is the voice of those who hold an undiluted view of individual liberty – those who believe that individual rights extend to women who face choices about abortion, Americans who happen to be gay, and those who don’t place other asterisks on freedom.

Likewise, there will be no voice for the growing number of Americans who see the hypocrisy and failure of drug laws that condone alcohol at White House Dinners while incarcerating millions of Americans, including our kids, who choose to smoke pot.

I wish the participants in the debate well. And I sympathize with the millions of Americans whose beliefs will not be on display in Manchester on June 13.

I look forward to participating in the July 10 debate in Las Vegas, sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform and the Daily Caller."

Johnson can "respect the right of CNN and the other sponsors" if he likes. I don't respect anything about it. In fact, I call bullshit.

I am sick to death of having to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two suck-fests. I've grown weary of having the media and political establishment tell me who is "electable". I hate that a major media (pffft) outlet would ignore the candidate with the single most impressive track record.

And CNN can cram their "criteria". They invited Trump, fergawdsake. (Who already took his ball and went home, may I remind you. He's proven he doesn't have the stuff.) They invited Palin, who isn't even a damn candidate! Ditto Guiliani and Huckabee.

But they'll ignore Johnson, who had the guts to declare months ago while most of the others were still playing "will-I-won't-I-exploratory-someone-beg-me-cuz-that's-what-my-ego-requires" foolishness.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

You've heard the story by now, right? Congressman's all minding his business, watching some hockey and thinking about tweeting about it. Suddenly, he notices a tweet... from him!... to a young woman!... showcasing someone's stiffy! With lightning reflexes, the Congressman deletes the tweet, deletes his entire photo collection, and manages to find the humor in this embarassing situation, sharing a little joke with his followers.

Go read the WeinerGate story there, if you've missed much (and it's still developing). I brought it up because I've found another story that - when looked at alongside the Weiner tweet - makes me want to scream CONSPIRACY! Or something else...

You see, this has happened to others. Yes, although it sounds hard to believe that even one politician would fall prey to hackers twittering his tweeter, it may be the first signs of

...dun...dun...DUNNNNNNN!

a new-style political activist that attempts to... well, I admit, motive makes this a toughie... are they trying to embarrass these guys? Get them dates? I dunno. Anyway, for whatever reason, they're on a mission to show the world the private parts of politicians (or a reasonable facsimile thereof, 'cause of course they cry "that's not my junk")!

Meet George Lepp, Canadian PC candidate. Mr. Lepp had his Blackberry stolen and a "graphic photo" tweeted from his account. (Guess what kind of graphic photo... Yup. That's it.) According to conflicting reports, it either was or was not recording in camera mode while in his pants pocket. (Though I ask you... would footage from your pocket show your bare body? Or just some white cotton and darkness?) Regardless, the tweet was discovered - by his son - and removed.

So, why do I bring this up? C'mon! Two of them?

This is clearly the work of an evil genius, probably connected somehow to Andrew Breitbart. (I don't know how. I just know that's what they scream. AaaiiirrgarblegarbleBREITBARTsnortmaddowsigh. Right?) Anyway, I suspect the DUfringe is incorrect. It's not a conspiracy. It's a lone wolf.

Derfler had been waiting for his babysitter when he saw his mailman acting odd at his neighbor's house across the street. The postal worker then pulled down his pants and that's when Derfler began snapping pictures.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Huffington Post is happily announcing a new “job created” in the White House.

The Obama administration has created and staffed a new position tucked inside their communications shop for helping coordinate rapid response to unfavorable stories and fostering and improving relations with the progressive online community.

What the hell?!

“Rapid response to unfavorable stories”? I could see something like that geared toward… oh, I dunno… inaccurate stories. Or even fabricated stories.

The President of the United States of America has finally created a damn job, and it’s a media hall-monitor who’ll respond rapidly to unfavorable (read: right-leaning) stories. AND he’ll further toady to, presumably leak to, and likely make journo-police out of the progressive (read: fringe left) online community.

Lovely.

This is creepy stuff.

Oh, sure… they’ll make fun of anyone who says as much. They already are. That’s part of why I find it so… well, creepy.

This administration genuinely sees nothing wrong with paying a federal minion to muck around in the formerly free exchange of ideas and information.

Ahem… Mr. President?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Now, nowhere in there does it say “But the President can just create an agent or agency who does things this article forbids, as long as he’s smart enough to slip it past the rubes!”

So. We have arrogance beyond anything we’ve previously guessed at, let alone experienced. We have a “Constitutional scholar” (my ass) who’s confused the writing in the margins of his Cliff’s Notes with imagined progressive amendments to our sacred document. And we have a NEW JOB CREATED!

(Actually, that part’s crap since dude already worked for the administration. So while Obama may have earned a prize for chutzpah, he doesn’t get any credit for job creation. Again.)

And ya know what else about it I don’t like? They think it’s funny. “Oh, Big Brother’s gonna getcha! You betcha! Oh-HAR-HAR-HAR!” That’s right. This violation of one of our most basic rights is hi-freaking-larious. Why, look at the tone they’ve started out with. As @MINITRU@BaghdadBob @jesseclee44, his first tweet was this:

Yeah, I’m amused.

One thing about it… If Obama had created this job, he’d have gotten extra credit for providing unparalleled job security. I mean, what could be more certain than a paycheck that’s guaranteed for as long as folks are unfavorable to Obama? Why, he’s set ’til… what?

"In the end, I was able to resolve every competing consideration but one, but that, the interests and wishes of my family, is the most important consideration of all. If I have disappointed you, I will always be sorry."

The Daniels family has made no secret of the fact that Mitch's wife Cheri does not prefer the glaring spotlight of life as a political wife. Then the story of their divorce and remarriage started trending as news, and many in the media and blogosphere speculated, or flatly stated, that their marital history was the reason for her media-shyness.

There must be even more to the wife leaving-returning story than we see on the surface (and that's quite a bit already).

Uh... yeah. That, or her worst fears were proved correct. Mitch Daniels hadn't even decided whether to run, and we're climbing all over them with microscopes. And I remind you... "front edge of the storm". Had he announced a candidacy, the media - sharks already - would have been on her like sharks on steroids. Anyone running has to survive the press throughout the ugly primaries and the uglier general... before they have to be scrutinized like no others for four or eight years, with coverage of every move they make.

Not a comfortable situation for a private person. Which may describe Mitch Daniels as well. At the state GOP dinner, he said of running for President:

”My friends know it’s never been any intention of mine. I’d like to go to some quiet place where nobody could find me. Like Al Gore’s cable network."

He must be serious if he's considering hiding out with Gore.

Still, I respect and admire his decision... all the more because I suspect it wasn't an easy one, or one he'll ever stop hearing about. And while some might see this as a show of weakness, I disagree. This is a different kind of strength.

"Simply put, I find myself caught between two duties. I love my country; I love my family more."

Saturday, May 21, 2011

The 16-year-old high school girl who challenged Michelle Bachmann to a debate is claiming she's received threats of violence and rape.

I call bullshit.

Here's the deal: A week or so ago, Cherry Hill student Amy Myers challenged Bachmann to a debate on the Constitution. She threw down the gauntlet in a letter posted on CNN's iReport. The story made the news and blogs, Congresswoman Bachmann didn't respond, and attention wandered to other things as new stories replaced the challenge.

Now Ms. Myers and her father, Wayne, are in the news again... This time, they tell the Courier-Press they're alarmed about comments on conservative websites.

"A lot of them are calling me a whore"

They say commenters have threatened to publish their address, or commit violence or rape.

Here's why I'm not buying it.

First, they haven't shown proof. No screen captures, no links, nothing. These two are social-media-savvy enough to upload to iReport and run a Facebook page dedicated to this publicity stunt debate, but they didn't blog or otherwise document these heinous acts?

Second, the father claimed that the school had received threatening mail... but the school says the calls they've received were questions about whether Myers is a student, who wrote the letter to Bachmann, and similar inquiries.

Bastnagel said the district's security director told Wayne Myers none of the calls contained threats. He also assured Myers the district would investigate any threats.

Also, the father claims to have his mail carrier and a neighbor watching for suspicious activity. He says:

"I personally did not think there would be a reaction like actual stalking and the vitriol that's coming out."

But neither the story or the quoted police officers mention a stalker.

So already, this whole thing strikes me as shady. But it gets stranger.

Amy was set to give the C-P a video interview. The night before, "a somewhat panicked-sounding Wayne Myers phoned to cancel". His reason? The threats sent to the school. You know... the ones the school assured him didn't happen.

But he also mentioned it would be better for Amy if Bachmann couldn't study the videos.

"If she does the video interview, they might find certain weaknesses. We don't want to bring up what her debate strategy is going to be."

Good grief. This guy's a goof. And people are spreading this b.s. around like it's pinkeye - and escalating it. Already at least one message on the Facebook page is calling the mystery comments "death threats".

What we have here is an unhinged liberal activist preaching to the choir. They expect Tea Partyers to be misogynistic haters because that is the stereotype they've created. But in reality I would stake my reputation on any actual threats being quickly and vehemently shouted down by folks from the Right. That's how we roll. We debate ideas, not personalities.

And he's not the only one. I received the following press statement from the Gary Johnson campaign. (Since there's not enough serious coverage of Johnson and his ideas elsewhere, I'm printing the whole thing.)

Maybe, just maybe, they forgot. Or maybe they actually believe that what the U.S. is doing in Libya somehow doesn’t constitute the use of our armed forces -- $750 million worth of bombs and missiles notwithstanding. Whatever the reason, it is obvious that the President has no intention of complying with the War Powers Act with regard to our military intervention in Libya.

This blatant disregard for the law must not go unchallenged. As several Senators did this week, Congress must demand an explanation for the fact that, with no declaration of war, no authorization from Congress, and certainly no imminent threat to the U.S., our forces are today engaged in what is clearly a military conflict halfway around the world in Libya.

Specifically, the War Powers Act requires that the use of American forces in a conflict must be ended within 60 days of commencing – unless Congress expressly authorizes otherwise. In terms of our current engagement in Libya, Congress hasn’t authorized anything, nor has the President asked them to, and today, May 20, is the 60th day.

Perhaps we will be pleasantly surprised and the President will stop our military’s involvement in Libya -- today, but I rather doubt it. The War Powers Act was enacted almost 40 years ago for a reason. After fighting two costly wars, Korea and Vietnam, with no formal declaration of war, Congress acted to limit the authority of the President to engage the military in “open-ended” conflicts with no clear congressional consent. It was carefully crafted to allow the Commander-in-Chief to respond to attacks and otherwise take whatever action necessary to protect us. At the same time, it was obviously crafted to limit precisely the kinds of ill-defined and costly uses of our military that we are witnessing in Libya right now.

To be fair, this President is certainly not the first to disregard the War Powers Act. Some have even questioned its constitutionality. But until the Courts or Congress deem otherwise, it is the law of the land – and in my opinion, a good one.

If there are compelling reasons, strategic, humanitarian or otherwise, to be doing what we are doing in Libya, then Congress will likely authorize it. If not, then perhaps we shouldn’t be firing those missiles and dropping those bombs – missiles and bombs financed with borrowed and printed money.

Either way, Mr. President, don’t treat today as just another deadline to ignore.

The Times credits massive fundraising by Obama - and Republican voter discontent over Michael Steele - for the difference.

I'm not convinced that's the case here.

Oh, Obama's raising cash. That part's correct. And Republican voters are discontent, that's also correct. But the idea that they're still irritated over Michael Steele? I don't think so... (Well, maybe they are. I just don't see that as the money problem.)

So what's going on?

I think Republican voters learned an important, albeit painful, lesson about the National Party in 2010 - starting with Charlie Crist. Also, let's not forget Newt Gingrich's candidate Dede Scozzafava. How about Arlen Specter?

Time and again, despite actual conservative candidates with grassroots support, the Republican establishment has chosen to ignore the will of the voters (read: DONORS, you fools) in favor of keeping it all in the club. And finally, it got to be more than non-establishment types could bear.

Michelle Malkin has multiple archived posts (in her link style: here, here, here, here, and here) demonstrating exactly how previous donors reacted to solicitations from the RNC. Some of those are hilarious, you should check 'em out. RS McCain has also covered the grassroots dissent, and linked the "Not One Red Cent" movement.

So now we have another Presidential election on the horizon... What'll happen? Will there be empty coffers for Republican candidates? Have the conservative voters disengaged?

No.

But they've learned.

They aren't going to send hard-earned money to a National Party that is more concerned with itself than the country or the voters. They're going to wait... choose their candidate... and send the cash directly to those campaigns.

I think it's a good thing. Let the Republican Party as an entity get a little taste of how the free market works. Maybe they'll learn a lesson, just like their voters have - the hard way.